4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 74

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yes, there is no search warrant listed on the PA Courts webpage for the Rubbish Bins that are specifically placed on the street for collection. Therefore, PA LE or the FBI (whoever it was who collected the Kohberger family trash) did not need a warrant to do so IMO. That is, unless there was a warrant and it is still sealed, but I see no rational reason why that would be the case. MOO

Commonwealth v. Kohberger 682 MD 2022 | Cases of Public Interest | News & Statistics | Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania

Edited grammar

How did investigators use DNA profiling to identify the suspect in the Idaho student killings?

Newly released court filings explain how authorities zeroed in on their suspect in the killing of four Idaho college students with DNA analysis.

www.usatoday.com

According to this article, there was a warrant. Warrant would have been smart because no one wants to lose the curtilage versus curb privacy argument and have evidence thrown out, and in a state with greater expectation of privacy, why run that risk? other links on previous page. So IDK if there was a warrant re the trash search or not, but it certainly would have been the prudent choice.

 

[schooling]

He would have known that a DNA sample left at the scene could identify him via his parents' DNA is the point. He must have studied DNA .
They had his DNA from button on sheath.
They had his parents' DNA from rubbish testing.

There was no point in him trying to hide his own DNA when his parents' DNA matched sample found on sheath.
Ergo, no point in hiding his own rubbish without also hiding his parents' rubbish.

If he did not know they had his DNA he was going to an awful lot of ridiculous trouble to hide it.
It's not rocket science.

A Science Odyssey:Resources: Camp-in Curriculum: Genetics

BK wasn't necessarily sure the police had his DNA. And BK was probably just as surprised as we were when we found out that LE enforcement went directly to genealogy. We always hear that it's decades before they go that route. And there's been a lot of privacy issues raised around it and challenges. I doubt he was in the frame of mind that he had to hide his parents DNA.

Police found DNA at the crime scene. We know BK's name was run on LE's computer and 1) noted 'bushy eye brows' 2) registration change, PA requires no front plates 3) drove a car that matched the description of the murderer 4) the cherry on top - he was pulled over near the house in the middle of the night months early.

#4 probably put him at the top of the person of interest list but the 3 week gap in the PCA will likely reveal more. IMO we'll find out that police were able to return the genealogy results so quickly because they were able to compare BK's family tree (through simple computer research) to whatever results they got back on genealogy. This makes the process a lot simpler. If they didn't have BK's name from him driving an Elantra they might still be looking.

Lastly, was BK supposed to keep his parents trash in the house? Stash it in the basement? Get pulled over, again, at 3am with a car full of trash bags? Nope! He was being cautious and was spooked by the cross country drive but doubted that LE was on to him.

All MOO

 

[jepop]

How did investigators use DNA profiling to identify the suspect in the Idaho student killings?

Newly released court filings explain how authorities zeroed in on their suspect in the killing of four Idaho college students with DNA analysis.

www.usatoday.com

According to this article, there was a warrant. Warrant would have been smart because no one wants to lose the curtilage versus curb privacy argument and have evidence thrown out, and in a state with greater expectation of privacy, why run that risk? other links on previous page. So IDK if there was a warrant re the trash search or not, but it certainly would have been the prudent choice.

Well, it isn't listed on the PA Courts website as far as I can see and MSM in that article do not cite a source for their assertion. IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I searched, and PA does have higher expectation of privacy and warrant was a good idea.

why risk having the evidence excluded when you can get a warrant and seal the deal imo jmo. WA is the same way.

and while BK didn't know that LE had his DNA, that's a moot point. LE knew it. And who knows why BK was hiding his garbage. Could be because he's weird. Could be because he left a leather sheath on a bed. Could be both. Could be neither. Could be eating disorder or OCD or drugs or just a bizarre hobby. IDK.

Search and seizure law in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia :

The law of search and seizure in Pennsylvania is controlled by both the United States Constitution and the broader protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This article is concerned only with the protections provided by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Overview[edit]​

Police officers and other law enforcement officials are limited in the means of investigation that they may utilize. That is, the law limits the ways in which police officers can investigate and arrest a person suspected of a crime. In the event a law enforcement official violates these rules, evidence obtained may be suppressed, which essentially means that the prosecution may not use the evidence in court to convict a defendant of the crime charged. Successful suppression of evidence often means the prosecution will not be able to make out the charges, and the defendant gets to go home. This article provides an overview summary of some of the major topics in Pennsylvania search and seizure jurisprudence.

Relationship between the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution[edit]​

The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment do not control the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of the protections under Article I § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (1991). In fact, Federal Fourth Amendment decisions establish the constitutional floor, but Pennsylvania is free to offer heightened protections to her citizens.[1]

The "Reasonable Expectation" of Privacy[edit]​

In order for a person to receive protection under Article I § 8 (and the Fourth Amendment), (1) that person must have exhibited a subjective, expectation of privacy and (2) that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 451 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982). It is the Defendant's burden to establish his or her privacy interest; after the privacy interest is established, the Commonwealth then needs to show that the subject evidence was not illegally obtained. Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Perea, 791 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).

Even if Bryan thought LE needed a search warrant for his trash he had no idea whether or not they could obtain one. What if they obtained one? In that case he better use his neighbor's trash to hide things he doesn't want them to see.

If he hadn't been arrested for 4 murders I would buy it that he was just weird or OCD about trash.

But he is out at 4:00am hiding trash in the neighbor's bin and is digging into his trash at 1:30 am.

Suspicious behavior when accused of 4 murders. I call it circumstantial evidence because it doesn't prove he was hiding anything.

But it doesn't prove he wasn't hiding anything either.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

Well, it isn't listed on the PA Courts website as far as I can see and MSM in that article do not cite a source for their assertion. IMO

IDK either. would have been smart move, regardless.

 

[Cool Cats]

The affidavit released Thursday said a tan leather knife sheath with U.S. Marine Corps insignia was found on the bed next to one of the victims. Investigators located a single source of male DNA on the button snap of the knife’s sheath, according to the affidavit.

Investigators in December took trash from Mr. Kohberger’s family home in Pennsylvania and sent it to a crime lab in Idaho, which identified a family DNA match, the affidavit said.

Police Say DNA, Video Tie Bryan Kohberger to University of Idaho Killings

The man accused of killing four University of Idaho students appeared Thursday in Idaho court.

www.wsj.com

It wouldn't have worked.

What wouldn't have worked?

 

[Nichevo]

I searched, and PA does have higher expectation of privacy and warrant was a good idea.

why risk having the evidence excluded when you can get a warrant and seal the deal imo jmo. WA is the same way.

and while BK didn't know that LE had his DNA, that's a moot point. LE knew it. And who knows why BK was hiding his garbage. Could be because he's weird. Could be because he left a leather sheath on a bed. Could be both. Could be neither. Could be eating disorder or OCD or drugs or just a bizarre hobby. IDK.

Search and seizure law in Pennsylvania - Wikipedia :

The law of search and seizure in Pennsylvania is controlled by both the United States Constitution and the broader protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution. This article is concerned only with the protections provided by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Overview[edit]​

Police officers and other law enforcement officials are limited in the means of investigation that they may utilize. That is, the law limits the ways in which police officers can investigate and arrest a person suspected of a crime. In the event a law enforcement official violates these rules, evidence obtained may be suppressed, which essentially means that the prosecution may not use the evidence in court to convict a defendant of the crime charged. Successful suppression of evidence often means the prosecution will not be able to make out the charges, and the defendant gets to go home. This article provides an overview summary of some of the major topics in Pennsylvania search and seizure jurisprudence.

Relationship between the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution[edit]​

The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment do not control the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of the protections under Article I § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (1991). In fact, Federal Fourth Amendment decisions establish the constitutional floor, but Pennsylvania is free to offer heightened protections to her citizens.[1]

The "Reasonable Expectation" of Privacy[edit]​

In order for a person to receive protection under Article I § 8 (and the Fourth Amendment), (1) that person must have exhibited a subjective, expectation of privacy and (2) that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 451 A.2d 245 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982). It is the Defendant's burden to establish his or her privacy interest; after the privacy interest is established, the Commonwealth then needs to show that the subject evidence was not illegally obtained. Commonwealth v. Millner, 888 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2005); Commonwealth v. Perea, 791 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).

According to Fishman Law Firm in Pennsylvania:

When Can the Police in Pennsylvania Search My Home or Property Without a Warrant?​

Garbage. Police can search your garbage in Pennsylvania if it is placed on your curb for pick up. Once the trash is placed on the curb, it is considered abandoned property and the police may seize it or search it for evidence of illegal activity.

MOO

 

[Cool Cats]

(Modsnip: quoted post was removed)


It's just my opinion he was acting like someone guilty would act, all secretive in the middle of the night hiding things, possibly hiding his own DNA.

The night they arrested him I believe for many reasons that he was going to be hiding his DNA at the neighbors because his trash in itself is not incriminating without DNA on it. No reason to put regular trash in baggies without DNA on it.

Not a big deal, just opinions about the new information that just came out about what Bryan was doing at time of his arrest. What he was doing I find rather interesting, as do others.

Some think he wasn't trying to hide anything, I respect different opinions. Everyone's opinion is valid.

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

According to Fishman Law Firm in Pennsylvania:

When Can the Police in Pennsylvania Search My Home or Property Without a Warrant?​

Garbage. Police can search your garbage in Pennsylvania if it is placed on your curb for pick up. Once the trash is placed on the curb, it is considered abandoned property and the police may seize it or search it for evidence of illegal activity.

MOO

Yep. Quite aware, and the key word is 'curb'. do you know how many curtilage v curb v I had a reasonable expectation of privacy arguments end up with evidence tossed? A bunch. And a warrant is always the best choice because if you lose your curb v curtilage argument, you lose the evidence.
imo jmo and supported by case law.

So why take the risk if you can get the warrant? well, the smart answer is, you don't take the risk. IDK if there was a warrant or not, but I know it would have been the most prudent choice. From the same source you quoted:

Curtilage. Curtilage is a somewhat elusive concept to understand because there are no steadfast rules to define it. The Supreme Court stated that curtilage is the area of a property that houses the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Although this may sound eloquent, it does not quite give the average person a solid idea of what curtilage actually is.

Generally, curtilage is considered to be the area in and around the home where the owners and/or occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion. This could encompass anything from an outdoor shed to a fenced backyard. Because of the expectation of privacy associated with these areas, police officers may be required to have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance before they are legally allowed to enter into the curtilage.

 

[jepop]

IDK either. would have been smart move, regardless.

BBM: IMO, there was no warrant needed for LE/FBI to search the curb placed rubbish bin in question and IMO it is probable that no warrant was applied for and therefore no warrant was granted. MOO

 

[Sister Golden Hair]

DBM

 

[Nova]

Just picking a nit but "apparent" in science means more like "as observed."

Black's law dictionary defines it as "That which Is obvious, evident, or manifest; what appears, or has been made manifest. In respect to facts involved in an appeal or writ of error, that which is stated in the record."

So, I agree, it is in no way akin to hearsay. Something that is apparent is essentially an accepted fact in both law and science.

I never mind having my language corrected, but "apparently" we agree here.

However, there is a popular usage of "apparently" which seems to mean "as it turns out" or "as I understand it" rather than the dictionary definition you cite where the conclusion is a judgment on the "appearance" of the matter discussed. Per current custom, popular usage--and the usage of the OP--is also considered "correct"; I just happened to notice that popular usage has departed from the idea of judging by observation.

 

[Nova]

Exactly. I'm sitting here dealing with a slew of students who "did things in their heads." I don't know what to say about missing papers, improperly constructed theses, etc. Do we simply change our standards for one person? (The answer is often "yes" these days - especially with so many students having "personal education plans" or other accommodations.

Most students, however, see other students in class and obtain some vague notion of their own standing. It's so important. Many a student thinks they are the smartest person in the room - when they are the only person they see (online classes). After a couple of years of online only teaching, I can say that 90% or more of students do not turn on their cameras (nor are they required to). If one calls upon them (as one might do in a real world class), they are simply quiet. Later, they will say they didn't have the bandwidth to do more (and this could be true).

At any rate, even in the regular classroom, students avoid each others' gazes. I had lots of classes where we sat round table style - that's not possible today. The students do not see other students' facial expressions (which can range from concern to eye rolling to astonishment to admiration).

Those are random thoughts about BK's online educational situation - his master's thesis and his inability to adapt to WSU's in person program. He was led to believe, by online learning, that he was okay. But online life is limited and real world experiences (such as being able to speak out loud to a class, if you're going to be a teacher) are extremely important. I hope we don't forget that.

ALL IMO.

Great points!

But I am responding to commiserate. When I was teaching college, I did my best to treat even large lecture sessions as group discussions. I allowed very free responses from students even if it meant interrupting me while I was speaking.

In my view, no facts we learn at college are as important as learning how to think critically. I don't know how you teach that when students aren't forced to think aloud during classes. (I'm sure you have figured out a way. I just imagine it to be difficult.)

 

[Nova]

...
We don't know if BK emptied his apartment before leaving WA for the winter break and driving with his father to PA. If he did empty his apartment, it is likely that he would have had more things packed into his car and/or trunk, and his father would have wondered what was going on, why BK was bringing his things back to PA on this trip.

It may be that BK wasn't planning to return to WA, and he took the things that mattered to him and left the rest behind so as not to alert his father.

We simply don't know at this point what his plans were, nor do we know if he emptied his apartment at WSU.

Am I not remembering correctly that BK left behind some computer equipment [ETA and a television] in Pullman? Of course it is possible BK simply couldn't come up with an excuse to give his father for why he was bringing his whole set-up home for just the holiday break.

But the other possibility is that BK intended fully to return in the New Year...

ETA: Would BK have risked "looking guilty" by not returning to WSU unless and until he was fired from a primary source of funding? Even if BK's DNA had not been found on the sheath, I would think Idaho LE and the FBI would have looked closely at Elentra owners who did not return to school in January, 2023.

 

[kittythehare]

According to Fishman Law Firm in Pennsylvania:

When Can the Police in Pennsylvania Search My Home or Property Without a Warrant?​

Garbage. Police can search your garbage in Pennsylvania if it is placed on your curb for pick up. Once the trash is placed on the curb, it is considered abandoned property and the police may seize it or search it for evidence of illegal activity.

MOO

Well done finding that.
Thank you.

 

[Nova]

IMO, we have no idea what he left behind. All we know is what was taken that conformed to the specifics of the search warrant.

Well, we have some idea. He left behind the things LE found and listed there.

But maybe you mean we don't know what all he left behind, just those items investigators thought worth confiscating. If so, that's probably true.

 

[Nova]

Yep. Quite aware, and the key word is 'curb'. do you know how many curtilage v curb v I had a reasonable expectation of privacy arguments end up with evidence tossed? A bunch. And a warrant is always the best choice because if you lose your curb v curtilage argument, you lose the evidence.
imo jmo and supported by case law.

So why take the risk if you can get the warrant? well, the smart answer is, you don't take the risk. IDK if there was a warrant or not, but I know it would have been the most prudent choice. From the same source you quoted:

Curtilage. Curtilage is a somewhat elusive concept to understand because there are no steadfast rules to define it. The Supreme Court stated that curtilage is the area of a property that houses the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Although this may sound eloquent, it does not quite give the average person a solid idea of what curtilage actually is.

Generally, curtilage is considered to be the area in and around the home where the owners and/or occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion. This could encompass anything from an outdoor shed to a fenced backyard. Because of the expectation of privacy associated with these areas, police officers may be required to have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance before they are legally allowed to enter into the curtilage.

Thank you for doing all that research for us.

Surely there is no theory of curtilage where BK has an expectation of privacy at his neighbor's curb!

 

[Cool Cats]

I disagree. I respect your opinion, but I just think that it's important to look at it from all perspectives. I didn't say you were wrong. I said you don't know nor do i.

I do agree with the very valid opinion that there was no reason for Bryan to hide his DNA if he thought he may have left some on his sheath - because he would know LE could simply use his parent's DNA for comparison.

However, Bryan did not know for sure that LE had his DNA.

 

[wary]

Yep. Quite aware, and the key word is 'curb'. do you know how many curtilage v curb v I had a reasonable expectation of privacy arguments end up with evidence tossed? A bunch. And a warrant is always the best choice because if you lose your curb v curtilage argument, you lose the evidence.
imo jmo and supported by case law.

So why take the risk if you can get the warrant? well, the smart answer is, you don't take the risk. IDK if there was a warrant or not, but I know it would have been the most prudent choice. From the same source you quoted:

Curtilage. Curtilage is a somewhat elusive concept to understand because there are no steadfast rules to define it. The Supreme Court stated that curtilage is the area of a property that houses the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Although this may sound eloquent, it does not quite give the average person a solid idea of what curtilage actually is.

Generally, curtilage is considered to be the area in and around the home where the owners and/or occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion. This could encompass anything from an outdoor shed to a fenced backyard. Because of the expectation of privacy associated with these areas, police officers may be required to have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance before they are legally allowed to enter into the curtilage.

Then I’d think it’d certainly be open season on anything you put into the neighbor’s trash—the only one who’d have a right to complain would be the neighbor.

all MOO, of course

 

[jepop]

I do agree with the very valid opinion that there was no reason for Bryan to hide his DNA if he thought he may have left some on his sheath - because he would know LE could simply use his parent's DNA for comparison.

However, Bryan did not know for sure that LE had his DNA.

BBM: Also, if BK was being careful about how he disposed of his rubbish after the murders as opposed to how he behaved in general prior to the murders (or maybe prior to any decision/ideation concerning committing these murders) then his reasoning for commencing and/or escalating the behaviour does not, IMO, necessarily need to make rational or logical sense no matter whether he worried or not about his dna possibly being found at the scene. The rationale may not be apparent to anyone thinking logically and with a removed perspective IMO. For instance I can speculate that carrying out careful disposal of his rubbish after Nov 13th (not just at this folk's place in PA but also back in Pullman)-if he did do this- it may have helped BK maintain an illusion or feeling of control over circumstances and even himself where he felt rather out of control. Worrying about the sheath might have served as a catalyst for such feelings. Then there is LE's announcement re white elantra in first week of December. I can imagine that such behaviour (if it occured) may have helped BK feel safer when faced with the unknown of How Much Do LE know? And also being faced with the unknown of his future at WSU at that time. It may not have objectively added anything to his safety but that is not the point if speculating along these lines. MOO and just speculation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just bouncing off your post regarding BK's general behaviour.

On the subject of whether BK behaved like this in his life prior to Nov 13th, IMO we don't have enough information to say whether it was the norm for him or not to baggie up his rubbish and dispose of it, either in secret or more openly. I've read the MSM reports of neighbours re hearing vacuuming in the middle of the night but that doesn't tell me much. I haven't read any reports from past friends or colleagues at DeSales or WSU that include/mention him carefully bagging up his rubbish in his office for instance. Also haven't read anything along those lines from anyone interviewed back in PA. I would really be interested if anyone here has come across any reports about BK's rubbish disposing behaviour earlier in 2022 or in the years before he moved to Idaho. So as far as that line of reasoning goes it as much speculation as anything else at the moment as far as I'm concerned. MOO